The Queen v. John Conder : Translating Testimony

Dadda Singh sworn saith I am a hawker. I can identify my son in the portrait the one on the right is he. He was a hawker. I last saw him about 11 months ago. I have seen this watch before I identify it. I cannot swear to the chain. I can swear to the trinket. They are the property of Kaizer Singh my son. I cannot identify the brooch. I recollect that my son had a long gold brooch about 2 inches long. I cannot swear to the coat produced. He had one like it which he used to wear. I cannot identify the umbrella. The watch came from Leloot? In Singapore. My son got the watch there. I was not with him when he bought it. I saw it with my son in Singapore. I was 6 months with my son and we parted 11 months ago. During Christmas time he sent me a letter from the Sydney district – since that I have not heard from him. I have been enquiring of him but have been unable to trace him.

My son was 31 years old. He has been married about 12 years. Hindoos do not marry unless the father of the intended husband is present. He has left his wife about 6 years. It is the custom with the Hindoos that they are not bound to their wives. They can leave them if they wish. My son had a child who died.

I know by the letter (Ex E) that my sons wife is alive at home in India. I did not know from my son that he was in this district. I do not know much about his movements.

                                   Dadda Singh 

                                                                               Witness to Dadda Singh’s signature

                                      A.H. Pritchard   

                                            Indian Interpreter

Reference : Dadda Singh, The Queen v. John Conder, Supreme Court, Sale, 25 July 1893, PROV, VPRS30/P0, Unit 934, Case 327.